SMALL ARMS BILL

Wairarapa Times-Age, 25 November 1940, Page 9

SMALL ARMS BILL

FARMERS’ UNION PROTEST (Continued from page 4.) “The Lands for Settlement Act, 1925, deals specially with the settlement of land, and under it there is ample provision for acquiring land for settlement purposes, and for its subdivision and settlement under appropriate tenures. “If the Government did intend to depart radically from the present settlement laws, and from the present methods of acquiring land, then it should, have stated its intention clearly and definitely, by introducing a separate Act for this purpose, and should not have used the form of an amendment to an Act which was never designed to bring about settlement on any large scale, and which is associated in the public mind -with the purpose that its name indicates, small farms. “It may be stated that the Government does not intend to avail itself to the full of the powers which it will possess under this Bill, but you will realise that the fact that the Government is taking such wide powers must give rise to serious misgivings among the people most affected, the farming community. POWERS NOT DEFINED. “As the Bill stands it gives the Government power to take any land, and to any extent that it desires, and to farm such land on any scale that it wishes, but in itself the Bill does not disclose the extent of these powers. If the Government desires to do this the fact should be plainly, disclosed, but if, it does not desire to exercise these powers then it is reasonable to ask that the Government allay anxiety by taking only those which are necessary.

“If the Bill became law, the Government would be enabled to take the whole of any farm without limitation as to size or suitability for subdivision or regard to the tenure under which it is held. For instance, it could take' all the land in the Hutt Valley and farm it itself. Solemn contracts entered into by the Crown with its lessees can be broken at a moment’s notice if this Bill becomes law, and the covenants of Crown leases treated as so much waste paper. “It may be stated that your Government would never fully avail itself of this power, but in answer to this it may be pointed out that Governments come and Governments go, but the laws they enact remain on the Statute Book till they are repealed. The Lands for Settlement Act, 1925, provided that if the Government took land from any farmer it had to leave him certain definite minimum areas: 400 acres of j first-class land, 1000 acres of ■ second- I class land, and 2500 acres of third- j class land. The fairness of this provision has never been challenged, and it would appear to the Farmers’ Union that if it is desired to alter these minimum areas or to wipe them out completely, then the Government should state its intention frankly, so that this matter could be debated in the House with .the full knowledge of all the people affected. “Another grave objection which the Farmers Union has to the Bill is that if it is enacted without repealing the Public Works Act and the other Acts for land settlement on the Statute Book, then we will have two systems for acquiring land for settlement and other purposes running side by side in New Zealand, ■ft-hich can lead only to chaos.

COMPENSATION PROVISIONS. “The compensation provisions are also objected to. The substitution of a magistrate for a judge of the Supreme Court as president of the Court is a departure from the present law which has far-reaching implications. A judge of the Supreme Court is a completely independent person who cannot. be removed at the whim of the Government, as can a magistrate, and, further, it is possible that a magistrate may be a man with relatively little knowledge of the law. It is impossible for this to be the case so far as a judge is concerned. the possibility of a miscarriage of justice is intensified by the further provision that the Government, in the person of the Minister of Justice, shall appoint the magistrate to decide a dispute to which it is a party. In any case, the taking away of the right of any person to have his case heard by a higher Court is a matter of principle which should be debated entirely on its own in Parliament, an,d which should be treated as a matter of principle and not in relation to any particular Bill. No citizen can be expected to view with equanimity his right of appeal to a higher Court being taken away.” After a detailed criticism of the clauses and schedules of the Bill, the letter continues: — "You will see, sir. that the present unrest among farmers is based on solid grounds for objection to the Bill, and I think you will admit, when you read this detailed criticism, that farmers have just cause for complaint. SETTLEMENT OF SOLDIERS.

“If there is to be such a radical departure from present principles, then the Farmers’ Union is of the opinion that the Government should come forward and say so straight out, then everyone would know what the position was. As things are. the alterations which the Bill would make if it became law are concealed, and this is as much a cause for misapprehension as anything else, for the farming community is most interested and keenly desirous of seeing that ample provision is made for the settlement of soldiers on the land when they return from the war. It is of the opinion, however, that the terms and conditions of such settlement should be fair to both sellers of land and to the returned soldiers. “It is also of the opinion that much more care should be expended upon drawing up a scheme of land settlement than has been the ease so far, and it is willing at all times to give the greatest possible assistance to the Government in order that a scheme of land settlement and legislation for that purpose can be drawn up which will function without friction and with complete success.”

DIRECT ATTACK ON FARMERS’ FEELING OF SECURITY. MR HAMILTON REPLIES TO MINISTER. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, This Day. “The Small. Farms Amendment Bill

is loaded against the farmer,” said the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hamilton, when referring on Saturday to a statement made the previous evening by the Minister of Lands, Mr Langstone, who had announced that it was the intention of the Government to proceed with the Bill when the session of Parliament was resumed this week. Mr Hamilton said it was no use the Minister trying to gloss over the proposals in the Bill. “It is proposed, in taking the land, to take away the farmer’s right tc< substantiate his claim to it," said Mr Hamilton. “Then, when the Bill goes to fix the price—which is described as ‘compensation’—it again lakes away the rights the farmer had to determine that price.

“The Bill is a direct attack upon the farmer's feeling of security in his farm holding. It takes away the farmer’s defence of his rights. This view is. confirmed, too, by the protest from one end of New Zealand to the other made by very determined farmers. If the Minister’s purpose is soldiers' settlement, then this is a strange approach to it. There is nothing about settlemeni in the Bill—it is just power to take land.

“An added and important significance is given by the fact that this measure is introduced as a Small Farms Amendment Bill. It was by an amendment to the Small Farms Bill — passed after a long fight in the House last year—that the Labour Government took away the right of freehold —the right of a settler to acquire the title tc his land if he wanted it. In my opinion that right is a basic democratic principle. "To continue to force such an issue in a Bill concerned with the rehabilitation of soldiers who are defending our democracy is difficult to stomach The significance of this unfortunate feature, plus fundamental variations ir land acquisition principles, must be deeply pondered by all rural people Its foolishness at a time when unity of heart and effort is essential to our very existence is most apparent. I deeply regret this. “I can only say —speaking I know foi the whole of the farming community—that everyone will be glad to give c hand to settle the returned soldiers who wish to go on to the land. With a proper approach to the farming community, the 'Minister will get all the land he wants at reasonable prices. Al’ of us would be glad to help him. “I hope the whole thing is reconsidered and nothing forced upon New Zealand till all those most interested and affected contribute to the forming of a sound and just plan.”